Mrs. Clinton began her political career as a volunteer for
Barry Goldwater; she married Bill Clinton who became the Democratic governor of
Arkansas and President of the United States.
During his administration NAFTA and Gramm/Leach/Blylie (the horror that
gave banks an open-hunting season on our economy) were passed and signed by the
President. She was charged with leading
the campaign to reform health care in the country. That effort failed miserably and gave the
insurance industry a warning shot, allowing them to prepare for the more serious
effort mounted by President Obama, giving us our present, unsatisfactory
system, and the insurance industry
guarantees. Clinton was given the
NY Senate seat, where she served reasonably well. To keep her close President Obama named her
Secretary of State. Her tenure was not
stellar and she proudly points to guidance and association with Henry Kissinger,
the mouthpiece of the Military/Industrial Complex. Clinton has
been the presumptive Democratic candidate for the last eight years.

US Senator Bernie Sanders began his political career about
the same time as Clinton. His career
bona fides include civil rights and worker activism, including arrest for
civil rights disobedience. He served as
mayor, elected with overwhelming approvals, and in Congress and the
Senate. His career has been noted for
consistent interest and support of human rights, worker rights, veteran rights,
economic fairness and justice. His
sponsored bills and amendments have been vastly successful.

The Iowa caucus ended
in a virtual tie, surprising Washington-based pundits. In Iowa Sanders spoke of the predation of
Wall Street and big banks, he proposed a $15.00 minimum wage, he expressed
concern about GMO in food, the loss of family farms, and the need to provide
affordable education for our children.
Clinton told the world $15.00 was unobtainable, Sanders' proposals were unobtainable, and he was naïve. Voters rejected her pleas; the caucus
resulted in a virtual tie.

In New Hampshire, the consensus was a Sanders win, by a
little. Everyone was surprised by the
blow out. In that contest Clinton
actually had a reduction in votes of about 15% from her 2008 totals;
additionally, in the Republican primary, with their large collection of candidates,
Sanders received over 2,000 write-in
votes, Clinton got about 500.

In the general population Clinton's negatives far surpass
those of Sanders; her "not a chance for my vote" numbers hover in the mid
forties while Sanders' negatives seldom exceed ten percent.

Super Tuesday is the big deal, but, before that we have the
contests in Nevada and South Carolina.
The caucus in Nevada is first. Clinton
held a comfortable lead there through last year. The February '16 poll is calling it a toss
up. Sanders has far more staff and volunteers on the
ground; advertising buys will probably end up about equal. Nevada democratic caucus voters are largely
service employees and blue-collar
workers, folks who can easily identify
with the urgent problems identified by Senator Sanders. The enthusiasm
numbers clearly go to Sanders. It was
surprising to speak with two separate Libertarians, each an open supporter of
Sanders. With the little we really know
of Nevada, I will make a soft projection of a Sanders win by fewer than 10.

In South Carolina, the foundation of the so-called Clinton "fire
wall", the Clinton campaign is appearing shaky.
Despite employing the most expensive and respected operatives available
in the Democratic Party, the Clinton campaign seems out of touch with public
sentiment and concerns. Sanders has led
in the polls for months with white South Carolina primary voters. His numbers with black democratic-primary
voters have been surprisingly low.
President Bill Clinton was a favorite with black voters; the conjecture
is that the affinity for Bill easily transfers to Hillary. Perhaps that is true; the primary in South
Carolina will let the world know.
Between eight years of a presumed Clinton candidacy and the ongoing
demands of making a living let us suspect that a final decision in the primary
has been deferred until closer to the date. Blacks
in South Carolina are not a monolithic group. As more South Carolina voters
find time to pay more attention to the differences between the candidates a more even distribution will begin to show in
the various polls and the primary itself.
It should be noted that on all
social media in South Carolina mention of Sanders exceeds Clinton by multiples.

With high public negative opinions to many Clinton
platforms, her ongoing affinity with and dependence on Wall-Street money, her off-putting and sometimes offensive
personal behavior, many voters simply do not
want her in the White House.
Additionally, 2016 is not 2008.
The issues that the public finds of interest have changed; the
demographics of the country have changed.
Younger voters are now the majority; white voters are now a
minority. Wall-Street money pollution in
our politics has finally penetrated the public consciousness. If Sanders can achieve vote totals in the mid
40% range in South Carolina, the Super-Tuesday voters and the media will begin to take critical notice of his platforms. If Clinton manages to lose in South Carolina
(very unlikely) her campaign for President is over; she should abdicate the
nomination at that time. The most likely scenario is that Clinton wins a close race in South
Carolina, the race heats up, with Clinton taking the majority of Southern
states on Super Tuesday, and Sanders sweeping Colorado, Minnesota, Massachusetts,
and Vermont. Sanders would take the
majority of remaining primaries, sweeping California to clench the numbers to
avoid a brokered convention.

The public unease with the campaign this year portends an
exciting time. People have expressed
frustration with a government that does not work, with predatory banks, with
wars of empire, our ever-growing population living in poverty. Participation should be high so long as
Sanders remains in the race. Surviving
South Carolina and Super Tuesday will determine if his campaign wins the nomination.

This year the public rage at a predatory economy, loss of
rights and privacy, and loss of hope for a better future have been well expressed
despite media attempts to ignore those
issues and conditions. Voters have
declared they want no more bought-off politicians serving in office.

Our government structure was built on the model of the Iroquois Nation. They also based public decisions on the effect to the 7th generation. Studied at Writers Workshop, University of Iowa. Democrat, liberal, progressive, happy, introverted, (more...)

"Rob Kall shows us that the high-tech information revolution set the stage for a political and social evolution, the connectivity of which has the capacity to transform everything, everywhere. We have only to say 'yes' to tap [into] the power of this interconnection, participating in it from where we stand."